Team Biden reportedly going after private gun owners

| February 1, 2024

Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14092 back on March 14, 2023. The order called on the Department of Justice to clarify the definition of those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. The intent was to get private arms dealers to become federal firearms licensees. It appears that Biden wants to bring firearms sales in the U.S. closer to universal background checks… Without requiring Congress to pass a bill to Biden’s desk for signature.

From Empower Oversight: Whistleblowers & Research:

On March 14, 2023, President Joseph Biden issued Executive Order 14092, which required that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) “clarify the definition of who is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, and thus required to become Federal firearms licensees (FFLs), in order to increase compliance with the Federal background check requirement for firearm sales.”[1] President Biden announced the purpose of the executive order was to “move us as close as we can to universal background checks without new legislation.”[2]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) subsequently submitted a proposed rulemaking to the Department of Justice, which Attorney General Merrick Garland approved on August 30, 2023.[3] The draft rule was open for comments from September 8 to December 8, 2023.[4] The draft rule received immense comment and was interpreted by many to require that any private citizen who sells even a single firearm online might be required to register as an FFL[5]—despite clear language in law since 1986 that the term “engaged in the business” of selling firearms “shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”[6]

Empower Oversight has now learned through two sources in the ATF that at the direction of the White House, the ATF has drafted a 1,300-page document in support of a rule that would effectively ban private sales of firearms from one citizen to another by requiring background checks for every sale. The document’s drafting is reportedly being overseen by Senior Policy Counsel Eric Epstein, who worked as the Phoenix Field Office’s Division Counsel during Operation Wide Receiver (a precursor of Operation Fast and Furious).

Such an expansive rule that treats all private citizens the same as federal firearms licensees would circumvent the separation of powers in the Constitution, which grants “all legislative Powers” to Congress while requiring that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” To the extent such a rule prevents the private sale of firearms, it would also clearly violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which declares that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Nor would such a rule only hurt law-abiding firearms owners. The lessons of the Ruby Ridge and Waco standoffs should make clear that attempting to enforce such an expansive regulation could endanger countless ATF field agents who are forced to serve as the face of the Biden Administration in going after private firearms owners for constitutionally-protected firearms sales.

Empower Oversight provides the rest of the information, along with links to the references that they used to build their story, here.

Category: Joe BIden, Second Amendment

44 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
26Limabeans

Her holy Governess Janet Mills is trying the same thing in Maine.
Sportsmans Alliance of Maine is calling it “gibberish”.

SFC D

It’s not even authentic frontier gibberish.

26Limabeans

They try to link all gun ownership rights to hunting.
I don’t see hunting mentioned anywhere in the 2nd.

SFC D

Nope.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country”.

The feds see it as a threat to their existence.

Odie

If they weren’t doing stupid shit, they would have no reason to worry if they were above board to begin with.

SFC D

Concur. “Well regulated” was intended to mean “well trained”, not regulated into uselessness. And just who is this well regulated militia? You. Me. Us. Them. Everybody with a stake in the future of our republic.

Fyrfighter

The feds see it as a threat to their existence.”.. It IS.. As intended by the Founders…

SFC D

Yeahhhh but they see it as a threat to their grifting, insider trading, and influence peddling. It’s bad for their profit margin, and they take that very seriously!

USMC Steve

This is just one more thing that dementio Joe will get shoved up his ass in court. The Fed’s track record on gun restriction has been pretty poor the last two years or so.

jem3

But you can bet your ass that they will keep trying, unless they can gut the 2nd we cannot be controlled!

Odie

Do they really think at that point we will become more governable?

David

They don’t care if they lose. They don’t pay to fight it and there are enough “they can do it till it’s overturned” judges in their pocket that they get years of ‘interim’ enforcement.

Roh-Dog

Ruby Ridge? Where the AFT shot a 14-year old boy in the back and Lon Horiuchi killed a woman holding a baby?
That Ruby Ridge?

Maybe those folks should all think about different career choices the way things are going.

No one wants to be the number 1 man in a stack.

Roh-Dog

The clowns shot a dog in the butthole there too.

AFT-kid-dog-atf
fm2176

For the average American, this will make little to no difference. I don’t know how many times throughout the years I’ve informed people that there is no federal registration of firearms (officially), that they can sell their privately-owned firearm to another private party without having to “put it in their name”, and so on. My advice is usually to get a bill of sale if they want something showing they no longer own the gun, and if they really want to make it official, have that notarized.

There’s a big difference between dealing in firearms and selling the occasional gun or an unwanted collection. To me, a dealer is someone who sells guns to profit and does so regularly enough to generate steady income. In my opinion, a business license and FFL is the way to go about things if you want to make steady money. The previous owner of some of my guns, who sold us his dad’s 50+ gun collection last year, is not a dealer. Joltin’ Jermaine in the ‘hood, who gets his buyers to procure Glocks and switches and then sells those to street thugs, is.

Given the two examples above, who do you think such an order would affect more, Joe Everyman or Joltin’ Jermaine? We already know the answer. The AFT will be after every middle-class gun owner who dares to sell their grandpappy’s WWII bring back Mauser, while avoiding the much more dangerous streets where illegally modified straw purchases are commonly sold for the sake of committing further crimes.

rgr 769

Wish I had a dollar for every time I heard some actor in a TV show or movie say “the murder gun is unregistered.” It is like all the TV and movie script writers want the public to believe that all lawfully owned firearms are supposed to be “registered” with the government.

5JC

The shows are written in California where most guns are registered.

Many of the shows take place in places were registration is mandatory, such as, California, New York, Illinois.

When I tell a northern that my state doesn’t even require a permit to carry a pistol they get really crazy looking.

Last edited 2 months ago by 5JC
rgr 769

Welp, I once lived in Commiefornia, and back then, the only guns one was required to “register” were the so called assault rifles. Rather than register them (I had two), I moved them out of state. As I understand it, there is no registration law, but the state is simply keeping records on all firearm sales in a statewide database of the state’s background checks it conducts of all gun sales, including private transfers.

5JC

That would be defacto registration, no matter what they call it.

SFC D

Reason #52986.4 why I love Arizona.

26Limabeans

So, what we are looking at is a background check for both
seller and purchaser. That’s two background checks per sale.
And they would have you both wearing ankle monitors for a
minimum period to ensure the sale was not for illegal purposes.

rgr769

Several states have enacted state laws that require a background check for private sales through an FFL dealer. Calf. and Wash. come to mind. Thus, both the seller and buyer will be reported to the state.

Fyrfighter

Don’t forget Cali-East, formerly known as Colorado

Odie

Maybe we should all become hood rats with regards to our guns. The cops never look for Illegal weapons there.

Anonymous

Just like the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, Democrats’ “gun safety” bleating isn’t about your safety.

Forest Bondurant

FJB and the ATF can EABOD.

AW1Ed
bod
26Limabeans

You can find them at any Dicks Sporting Goods.

Last edited 2 months ago by 26Limabeans
AW1 Rod

See you in court, assholes.

Devtun

PINO’s boss Chairman Maobama still phucking America.

Skivvy Stacker

I’ve noticed something about our Federal gubmint.
They think that RULES are somehow LAWS.
Laws are made by the House and Senate, and either vetoed or signed by the President. They are then enforced by the DOJ.
Rules, on the other hand, are made by unelected burowcats and don’t have any sort of basis in Constitutionally protected or approved law. Yet, the DOJ is called upon to enforce these rules as if they were laws, and they find ways to attach penalties to these rules.
I have no clue as to how this is done other than corruption that would make gangrene look like bad bruise.

Graybeard

The case known as “Chevron” opened the door to the alphabet agencies becoming tyrants.
https://whatsupnewp.com/2024/01/a-little-fish-at-the-supreme-court-could-take-a-big-bite-out-of-regulatory-power/

Fyrfighter

IIRC, the SCOTUS is due to hear a related case/ review that decision in the near future

KoB

Again…It’s about control of We, The People v control of the gunz. And again…(((they))) would not be trying to control the gunz if (((they))) weren’t planning on doing something that would make us need to shoot them.

Prepare

A Proud Infidel®™

The British went full throttle after guns, then knife crimes went through the roof, next was turn-inf for knives, it’s a never-ending quest by Government for more control!

Jay

Guns? What guns? I don’t own any guns.

Forest Bondurant

I’m just now joining this party.

What are ‘guns’ anyway?

/sarc/

Odie

Some things people keep in leaky boats I think. Seems to be a popular, out of the way place to store them.

Thunderstixx

As an old man whose life was saved, twice, by a firearm these threats to our God Given Right to self defense against any and all comers.
It’s all part of the chaos that libturds like our very own slimebag continue to support.
The eventual overthrow of our Constitutional Republic is their plan.
No matter what they say, they will never change this plan and will continue to lie, cheat and steal until they get their dream.
This upcoming election is truly the most important in my 70 year lifespan. Of that, there is no doubt in my mind.
It matters who you vote for, period…

Blaster

I never was much of a gun trader, but more of a gun buyer. My wife likes gold and silver, I’m more into blued steel.

Stacy0311

Ask the British how that worked out for them last time they tried to enforce gun laws in North America

A Proud Infidel®™

“If you need a 30 Round magazine then you suck at Hunting!”
Well now, if YOU require an unarmed populace, then YOU SUCK at governing!!!!